COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THREE DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES FOR BROKEN INSTRUMENT REMOVAL
Hafez, M., Ghobashy, A., Hassanein, E. (2017). COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THREE DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES FOR BROKEN INSTRUMENT REMOVAL. EKB Journal Management System, 63(Issue 3 - July (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)), 2847-2854. doi: 10.21608/edj.2017.76337
Mennattullah Mohsen Hafez; Ahmed Mostafa Ghobashy; Ehab Elsaied Hassanein. "COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THREE DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES FOR BROKEN INSTRUMENT REMOVAL". EKB Journal Management System, 63, Issue 3 - July (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics), 2017, 2847-2854. doi: 10.21608/edj.2017.76337
Hafez, M., Ghobashy, A., Hassanein, E. (2017). 'COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THREE DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES FOR BROKEN INSTRUMENT REMOVAL', EKB Journal Management System, 63(Issue 3 - July (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)), pp. 2847-2854. doi: 10.21608/edj.2017.76337
Hafez, M., Ghobashy, A., Hassanein, E. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THREE DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES FOR BROKEN INSTRUMENT REMOVAL. EKB Journal Management System, 2017; 63(Issue 3 - July (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)): 2847-2854. doi: 10.21608/edj.2017.76337

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THREE DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES FOR BROKEN INSTRUMENT REMOVAL

Egyptian Dental Journal
Article 38, Volume 63, Issue 3 - July (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics), July 2017, Page 2847-2854  XML PDF (428 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/edj.2017.76337
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Mennattullah Mohsen Hafez1; Ahmed Mostafa Ghobashy2; Ehab Elsaied Hassanein3
1Assistant Lecturer, Department of Endodontics, Misr International University.
2Lecturer, Department of Endodontics, Misr International University.
3Professor, Department of Endodontics, Misr International University.
Abstract
The purpose was to evaluate three systems for broken instrument retrieval (Ultrasonic, Instrument Retrieval System “IRS”, and Microtube + Cyanoacrylate Adhesive). Cross-sectional area, time, and perforation incidences were recorded. A total of 60 extracted molar teeth were used. Teeth were placed in a cast compound arch shaped mold to facilitate handling. Teeth were divided into two groups according to type of motion used Group I: Reciprocating motion (n=30)
Group II: continuous rotation motion (n=30), and three subgroups according to the retrieval instrument used. Concerning retrieval time, Ultrasonics showed least time needed for retrieval in comparison to IRS and Microtubes. Ultrasonics can be used as universal retrieval systems for canal obstructions.
Keywords
IRS; microtube; Retrieval; ultrasonics; Time
Statistics
Article View: 209
PDF Download: 544